The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands to establish a case under Section 304B IPC.

JUDGEMENT

& O R D E R ( C A V ) Heard Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. R. Boruah, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for setting aside the Judgment dated 26.07.2023 and the subsequent Order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge (FTC) Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 184/2021 (Arising out of GR Case No. 3519/2020) and Sarthebari PS Case No. 279/2020 convicting the appellant under Sections 306/304B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B of the IPC and to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only, in default, of payment of fine to undergo SI for another period of 6 months under Section 306 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.08.2020, the Police received information that the deceased is found hanging in the house of the accused and accordingly registered Unnatural Death Case (UD Case) vide No. 23/2020 and visited the place of occurrence and got the inquest over the dead body. Subsequently, PW-1 lodged an FIR on 06.08.2020 alleging inter alia that the accused alongwith his father and mother have been torturing his daughter (deceased) both physically and mentally by demanding dowry after few days of their marriage. It is further alleged that after receiving dowry, the accused did not stop torturing the deceased, for which the deceased ultimately left the house of the accused and started staying with the informant. It is further alleged that after assurance given by the alleged husband not to torture the deceased, the informant left the deceased in the house of the accused on 03.08.2020 and on 04.08.2020 at about 8:00/8:30 in the night, the deceased called the informant and told him that the accused threatened to kill her. It is further alleged that on 05.08.2020 at 5:45/5:50 AM, the father of the accused informed the informant that his daughter expired. It is further alleged that after going to the house of the accused, the informant found the deceased hanging in their bed room.

Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.

4. Upon registration of the FIR, Police started recording the statement of witnesses and search for the accused but could not found him. On 13.10.2020, the accused surrendered at the Police Station and upon arresting him, the Investigating Officer forwarded him to the judicial custody. On the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet and thereafter, the Trial Court framed charge against the accused under Sections 306/304B of the IPC.

5. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances and refused to adduce evidence in defence. The Trial Court upon conclusion of the trial and hearing found the accused guilty under Sections 304B/306 IPC and accordingly convicted him.

6. Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused submits that the GD Entry based on which the investigation was started was not exhibited and hence, fatal to the prosecution case. He further submits that the inquest over the body was done on the basis of such GD Entry and that the FIR was lodged thereafter. He further submits that there is no direct evidence to show that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide and hence, no case of abetment is made out. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients prerequisite to constitute an offence under Section 304B of the IPC. He further submits that though PW-1 has stated in his evidence-in-chief that the accused used to physically and mentally torture the deceased, later on, during cross examination, he admitted that when he had left his daughter/deceased at the